AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORAL ORDER
[Per; Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (MJ)]
This Application is filed by the Appellant under Rule 31 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking Condonation of Delay of 14 days in filing of the Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Impugned Order was passed on 03.02.2023 and though they were not party to the litigation but came to know about the Impugned Order on the very next day i.e., 04.02.2023. It is also averred in the Application that the delay has been caused as the Applicant had to collect relevant papers from various Regional Offices.
We have heard Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.
Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (for short `The Code’) deals with Appeals and Appellate Authority. Section 61 (1) provides for a Statutory Right to Appeal against the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority by any person who is aggrieved by the Order and Section 61(2) provides for a period of Limitation of 30 days for filing such an Appeal. Proviso to Section 61(2) allows 15 days time for the Appellate Tribunal to Condone the Delay in filing of Appeal if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not filing the Appeal in time. Section 61 is reproduced as hereunder for the ready reference:
“61. Appeals and Appellate Authority. -
(1)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained under the Companies Act 2013 (18 of 2013), any person aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority under this part may prefer an appeal to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
(2)Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within thirty days before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal:
Provided that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal but such period shall not exceed fifteen days.
(3)An appeal against an order approving a resolution plan under section 31 may be filed on the following grounds, namely: –
(i)the approved resolution plan is in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force;
(ii)there has been material irregularity in exercise of the powers by the resolution professional during the corporate insolvency resolution period;
(iii)the debts owed to operational creditors of the corporate debtor have not been provided for in the resolution plan in the manner specified by the Board;
(iv)the insolvency resolution process costs have not been provided for repayment in priority to all other debts; or
(v)the resolution plan does not comply with any other criteria specified by the Board.
(4)An appeal against a liquidation order passed under section 33, or sub-section (4) of section 54L, or sub-section (4) of section 54N, may be filed on grounds of material irregularity or fraud committed in relation to such a liquidation order.
(5)An appeal against an order for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process passed under sub-section (2) of section 54-O, may be filed on grounds of material irregularity or fraud committed in relation to such an order.”
In the present case, the Appellant, a Government agency, allegedly not a party to the litigation, came to know about the Impugned Order on the very next date i.e., 04.02.2023 and was having about 28 days for the purpose of collecting the relevant information to file the Appeal in terms of Section 61(2) but the Appeal was not filed within that statutory period rather 14 more days were spent in filing the Appeal and the same has been filed on the last day provided in the proviso to Section 61(2) and a request thus has been made for Condonation of Delay.
No doubt, that this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to Condone the Delay but the said jurisdiction has to be exercised only if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not filing the Appeal in time.
We have pointedly asked the Counsel for the Appellant as to what was the reason for not filing the Appeal even within a period of 30 days and even till expiry of period of 14 days as provided Section 61(2) proviso to which he has replied that the Appellant was in the process of collecting relevant information from Regional Offices.
It is really strange that the agency of the Government failed to seek the required information within the period of 30 days which is otherwise available now on the website of each Department but the Appellant has shown total laxity in pursuing this matter in time and had allowed the statutory period of 30 days to expire and filed the Application for Condonation of Delay along with the Appeal on the 15th day which is the last day provided in terms of Section 61(2) proviso.
Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find it to be a sufficient cause for the purpose of Condonation of Delay of 14 days in filing the Appeal and hence the Application is hereby dismissed.
Since we have dismissed the Application for Condonation of Delay i.e. I.A. 508/2023 filed along with this Appeal, therefore, this Appeal is not duly constituted and the same is thus hereby dismissed.